On 11/29/07, Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 10:09 PM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure if Durova's exact words were that others had approved the block or others had simply agreed with her that the user was suspicious - can anyone clarify?
The full quote:
"Roughly two dozen people received the report. Those included people from the Foundation, and some (not all) members of ArbCom, and some people who had checkuser privileges. I did not run this through the Committee formally and received no explicit assurance that any checkuser had been run. I discussed the investigation in depth with roughly five people, all sleuths like myself. The information was actually very simple to disprove with one key fact one fact. None of the people who responded had access to that key fact. The responses I did receive ranged from positive to enthusiastic. I'm certain we all would have changed our minds immediately if that key information had been available to us." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_Decem... )
This is unclear to the extent that Durova does not say to which particular aspect the responses were "postive to enthusiastic"; many people have been jumping to the conclusion that this was to a proposal to block !!, but it could just have been to the suggestion that !! was a reincarnation of another user.
-- Sam Blacketer London E15
My previous post seems to be in error.
Cheers WilyD